Port Fibonacci, bucket and radix heaps

[Alpar Juttner]

The affected files are

• test/heap_test.cc
• lemon/radix_heap.h
• lemon/fib_heap.h
• lemon/bucket_heap.h

[Balazs Dezso]

Port of the remaining heaps

[Balazs Dezso]

The port of the remaining heaps can be found in the heap.bundle file. The implementation of the BucketHeap? also simplified, it does not contain code duplications.

[Alpar Juttner]

Replying to deba:

The port of the remaining heaps can be found in the heap.bundle file. The implementation of the BucketHeap? also simplified, it does not contain code duplications.

Unfortunately, these changesets (especially the doc changes in the last one) now conflicts with the current tip version of LEMON. Could you please rebase them to the tip of the main branch? In addition, please put a reference to this ticket in the commit log of each chgsets.

Thanks.

[Balazs Dezso]

Rebundle

[Balazs Dezso]

Replying to alpar:

Replying to deba:

The port of the remaining heaps can be found in the heap.bundle file. The implementation of the BucketHeap? also simplified, it does not contain code duplications.

Unfortunately, these changesets (especially the doc changes in the last one) now conflicts with the current tip version of LEMON. Could you please rebase them to the tip of the main branch? In addition, please put a reference to this ticket in the commit log of each chgsets.

Thanks.

I have uploaded a new bundle, however the last changeset differs from the original.

[Alpar Juttner]

Replying to deba:

I have uploaded a new bundle, however the last changeset differs from the original.

heaps.rebundle​ does not contain any heap related chgset. Also, you'd better use the extension .bundle for bundle files.

[Balazs Dezso]

Replying to alpar:

Replying to deba:

I have uploaded a new bundle, however the last changeset differs from the original.

heaps.rebundle​ does not contain any heap related chgset. Also, you'd better use the extension .bundle for bundle files.

Several additional changesets were included into the bundle (I think I used wrong base repository), but it contains [532697c9fa53], [bb8c4cd57900] and [9f529abcaebf]. All of them are already applied. I close this ticket.

[Alpar Juttner]

Ops. I've just noticed that [532697c9fa53], [bb8c4cd57900] and [9f529abcaebf] are also merged into the 1.0 branch. Does anyone an idea why are they there?

[Alpar Juttner]

Replying to alpar:

Ops. I've just noticed that [532697c9fa53], [bb8c4cd57900] and [9f529abcaebf] are also merged into the 1.0 branch. Does anyone an idea why are they there?

I mean branch 1.1. Sorry.

[Peter Kovacs]

I think it was done by accident, when the bugfix #330 [e9c203fb003d] was merged. That patch was merged into the main and should have been merged into the release branch 1.1, but it seems that the merge changeset from the main branch [994c7df296c9] was merged into the 1.1 branch, which also brought these patches and [703ebf476a1d] from #312. Neither of them would be important for the 1.1 branch, I think.

[Alpar Juttner]

Replying to kpeter:

I think it was done by accident, when the bugfix #330 [e9c203fb003d] was merged. That patch was merged into the main and should have been merged into the release branch 1.1, but it seems that the merge changeset from the main branch [994c7df296c9] was merged into the 1.1 branch, which also brought these patches and [703ebf476a1d] from #312. Neither of them would be important for the 1.1 branch, I think.

The changesets [532697c9fa53], [bb8c4cd57900] and [9f529abcaebf] implement new features, so we certainly want to exclude them from branch 1.1.

What about [703ebf476a1d]? Shall we consider it as a "unnecessary bugfix" (thus keep it) or do we want to get rid of it, too?

[Peter Kovacs]

Replying to alpar:

Replying to kpeter:

I think it was done by accident, when the bugfix #330 [e9c203fb003d] was merged. That patch was merged into the main and should have been merged into the release branch 1.1, but it seems that the merge changeset from the main branch [994c7df296c9] was merged into the 1.1 branch, which also brought these patches and [703ebf476a1d] from #312. Neither of them would be important for the 1.1 branch, I think.

The changesets [532697c9fa53], [bb8c4cd57900] and [9f529abcaebf] implement new features, so we certainly want to exclude them from branch 1.1.

I agree.

What about [703ebf476a1d]? Shall we consider it as a "unnecessary bugfix" (thus keep it) or do we want to get rid of it, too?

It is not clear whether it is a bugfix or an enhancement. Even if it is a bugfix, it is clearly not so important, it could be removed from branch 1.1.

[Alpar Juttner]

Replying to kpeter:

The changesets [532697c9fa53], [bb8c4cd57900] and [9f529abcaebf] implement new features, so we certainly want to exclude them from branch 1.1.

I agree.

What about [703ebf476a1d]? Shall we consider it as a "unnecessary bugfix" (thus keep it) or do we want to get rid of it, too?

It is not clear whether it is a bugfix or an enhancement. Even if it is a bugfix, it is clearly not so important, it could be removed from branch 1.1.

Good. All the four changesets has been backed out from 1.1, see [37f440367057].